Saving for a house deposit, how does anyone do this now...



Many do (not particularly on this post) have this idea that baby boomers had an easy ride & are quite resentful of them.

If everything else is more expensive, then it's harder to save for a house.

It's like the CL v European Cup argument on which I'd the easiest to win.

CL is easier to qualify, but once there the opposition is of higher quality.
Wheras the European Cup had easier opposition but harder to get there in the 1st place.

It's not really harder or easier, just different.

Many things in life that have a positive, often have a negative consequence.
So when the government introduce all the things to help buyers, all it does is push prices up. I can't help but feel that you just see the negative in everything.
Harder to save, but possible. Which is all anybody has said. Nobody has discounted that. Its not in contention. And as you also say,nobody on here is pushing the easy Boomer ride on this either.

Thank you for your psychological assessment, that usually costs money. If I was saving up for a house it would go right in there.

Mine for you is that you seem to need to assert things that nobody has actually questioned, suggesting you are perhaps sunconciously insecure in believing these core truths
 
Last edited:
I was really lucky. My first house in the 90s was only £46000 and you only needed a 5% deposit (0% deals were available, but with higher interest rates).
I was able to scrape together the £2500 needed quite easily.

When we moved 10 years later the house had doubled in value, leaving us with a huge amount of equity that enabled us to buy the current (and final) house we live in now.

A lad at work needed a house and he went down the rent to buy route, which suited him fine.
You rent for 10 years at say £500pcm for a £150k house.
At the end of the 10 years, they knock off the rent you've paid (£60k) from the original house (£150k) and you mortgage the remainder (£90k).
I know you're buying the house over 35 years, but once you own it, you can sell it.
Say the value of the house is £200k in 10 years time, then he will have £110k in equity to put towards a new gaff if he needs something bigger.
 
This might actually not even be true any more if they've had to pay for their social care before popping their clogs.
Which, I don't think in absolute terms is objectionable. The idea that someone who has assets should pay for their own way in life is pretty obvious. I'd rather my parents get good care while alive than have an awful final few years and me have money for it. Because its not politics I won't go into the discrepancies of how this is being calculated to favour the rich.

But in terms of how capital in this country works and with inheritance in particular, aye it could well be the last word in chopping out millenials legs from under them in terms of property ownership
 
This might actually not even be true any more if they've had to pay for their social care before popping their clogs.
It’s how both I got both my deposits - small amount left by my grandmother that got me my first house, larger amount when my uncle died that gave me enough for a decent deposit on my current place.
 
Which, I don't think in absolute terms is objectionable. The idea that someone who has assets should pay for their own way in life is pretty obvious. I'd rather my parents get good care while alive than have an awful final few years and me have money for it. Because its not politics I won't go into the discrepancies of how this is being calculated to favour the rich.

But in terms of how capital in this country works and with inheritance in particular, aye it could well be the last word in chopping out millenials legs from under them in terms of property ownership
Yeah you can't really complain about a move towards a fairer way of paying for social care tbf. Does feel like millennials taking a further shafting though. Can see why there's brewing kickback in the anti-work movement at the moment.
 
All you need is for a relative to die and leave you money.

Trouble is that you can't rely on relatives dying at the right time. With parents living longer, adult children are more likely to get their inheritances in their 50s and 60s.

I'm currently sorting out my aunt's estate. She had no children of her own so the inheritance is being split between adult nephews and nieces.
 
Trouble is that you can't rely on relatives dying at the right time. With parents living longer, adult children are more likely to get their inheritances in their 50s and 60s.

I'm currently sorting out my aunt's estate. She had no children of her own so the inheritance is being split between adult nephews and nieces.

Skip a generation. I'll likely be retired myself when my parents pop their clogs but I'm not relying on any inheritance for any future plans. However its likely that once they start to get in poor health & can't get about as much, they'll just start dishing out excess cash to grand kids to give them a helping hand.
Just looked at this, is it worth moving my savings from my ISA account?

Cash ISA's are largely pointless for the vast majority of people. As you can earn £1000 in interest before you pay tax (£500 for higher rate tax payers).
So you need a lot of cash to reach those amounts with current low rates.

BTW, if looking at instant access, cynergy are paying 0.7% which is a bit better than Marcus, but 0.4% of that is a 1 year introductory bonus.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the rate. Isa is tax free. Marcus is not.
At the moment it’s only 0.01%.
Skip a generation. I'll likely be retired myself when my parents pop their clogs but I'm not relying on any inheritance for any future plans. However its likely that once they start to get in poor health & can't get about as much, they'll just start dishing out excess cash to grand kids to give them a helping hand.


Cash ISA's are largely pointless for the vast majority of people. As you can earn £1000 in interest before you pay tax (£500 for higher rate tax payers).
So you need a lot of cash to reach those amounts with current low rates.

BTW, if looking at instant access, cynergy are paying 0.7% which is a bit better than Marcus, but 0.4% of that is a 1 year introductory bonus.
Cheers mate.
 
Last edited:
Skip a generation. I'll likely be retired myself when my parents pop their clogs but I'm not relying on any inheritance for any future plans. However its likely that once they start to get in poor health & can't get about as much, they'll just start dishing out excess cash to grand kids to give them a helping hand.

I didn't get a penny from any of my grandparents - though I did get a bottle of whisky my grandad had bought a couple of days before he died an hadn't got around to opening.
 
I was really lucky. My first house in the 90s was only £46000 and you only needed a 5% deposit (0% deals were available, but with higher interest rates).
I was able to scrape together the £2500 needed quite easily.

When we moved 10 years later the house had doubled in value, leaving us with a huge amount of equity that enabled us to buy the current (and final) house we live in now.

A lad at work needed a house and he went down the rent to buy route, which suited him fine.
You rent for 10 years at say £500pcm for a £150k house.
At the end of the 10 years, they knock off the rent you've paid (£60k) from the original house (£150k) and you mortgage the remainder (£90k).
I know you're buying the house over 35 years, but once you own it, you can sell it.
Say the value of the house is £200k in 10 years time, then he will have £110k in equity to put towards a new gaff if he needs something bigger.
Similar to us. We rented for the first six months after I left the army. Our first house in 1995 cost £59950. The builders kindly dropped it to below £60000 as that meant we didn’t have to fork out on some kind of tax. Sold it in 2003 for just under double what we paid.
 
Many do (not particularly on this post) have this idea that baby boomers had an easy ride & are quite resentful of them.

If everything else is more expensive, then it's harder to save for a house.

It's like the CL v European Cup argument on which I'd the easiest to win.

CL is easier to qualify, but once there the opposition is of higher quality.
Wheras the European Cup had easier opposition but harder to get there in the 1st place.

It's not really harder or easier, just different.

Many things in life that have a positive, often have a negative consequence.
So when the government introduce all the things to help buyers, all it does is push prices up. I can't help but feel that you just see the negative in everything.

Very good analogy to be fair mate.

Gone are the days a Staeu Bucharest, Malmo or Celtic or probably any side not in top ( 5 leagues (serie a, PL, la liga, Ligue 1 and bundesliga) will make the final.
 

Back
Top